|
|
|
|
|
| Who's following the Election?
Posted: 10/11/2008 4:59:48 PM | Aren't "political issues" on the what women don't like talking about list? Oh well.
"Add to it Harper's lack of recognizing that this country will be affected by the financial turmoil in the world, that his actions toward the banks and mortgages was ordered by the G8 summit, not his own ideals, to free up money from the banks so that they could then use the freed up money to help failing industry in the country. "
This is what drives me crazy about political banter. Two days ago Harper was an empathy sucking robot who doesn't care about the economy. Now, after coming up with a great plan, he's a G8 puppet. This is a global problem and should be dealt with in accord with other nations. The G8 should operate in unison on this one. And what are you talking about "helping failing industries" ? This was a fabulous economic coup that will help everyone who is in any way at all involved in the economy. Unlike its American counterparts Fannie and Freddie, CMHC actually makes money and actually has to have the funds available to cover all of the mortgages it insures. So why sit on that 25 billion dollar fund? Why not buy the loans they've already insured and free up the capital so banks can lower their rates accordingly and continue to lend money and keep the economy moving. Personal lines of credit, secured lines, mortgages, business lines, all of it is cheaper now which gives people more capital to invest. That's the key to economic viability. All good for the capitalist pigs among us.
"No matter who attempted to run a gun registry at that point if they had attempted to use computer based businesses, it was at the height of the expense for such before the bottom began to drop out of the dot com market and the Liberals were paying a premium price for computer consultation and systems...it was foolish but any fool would have gone down that road at that time. Frankly no one should have done it...it was an urbanite knee jerk reaction to controlling gun related crime and money to law enforcement rather than redundancy to a gun registry should have been the solution..IMHO."
No. Not anybody would have done it. The Libs did it and they should have known better. Two cents spent on that whole waste of time was moronic. I'm not willing to write off a billion dollars to expensive computer geeks. Even their estimate of a million dollars was a joke. Drop a million dollars in health care, much less a billion, and see how many lives you save. But that's all in the past.
And one more thing about Afghanistan. There's so much about Canada being a big pawn in the great conspiracy of oil the Americans have fabricated. And everybody thinks we're suckers for putting our soldiers there. Here's what I don't get, and maybe I'm naive, but aren't the Taliban a bunch of motherf'ers? When the Americans left in 2003, the Taliban executed 142 teachers just for teaching girls. These are the guys who think it's okay to beat women with sticks if they don't wear bags over their heads and stay inside all day. Shouldn't we at least give it a go? And Harper has said that we're out of there in 2011. So there is an end, there is a goal, we are rebuilding and training for eventual Afghan autonomy. And at the very least we can leave in 2011 with our international commitments met and respected rather than bailing early with nothing but a totally messed up country left behind. And I think there is another bottom line to look at too...ask a soldier who has lost a friend there if he or she wants to stay and get a little pay back. That vote is unanimous. But again, maybe I'm just a redneck hick. Please inform me if I'm missing something.
Again, no matter what your personal issues are, your taxes are going to go up considerably with the libs or the ndp. There isn't an economist in the world...check that...an impartial economist in the world, not a single one, who will tell you higher taxes are good for a capitalist economy. Environmentally speaking, the only people who have spent a single cent trying to fix any of this are oil companies and the Alberta government. Let them make money but make them spend it on new technology. The Alberta government has committed 2 billion to carbon capture. Suncor, Syncrude and Canadian Oilsands have all developed their own research departments and are trying to clean up. Make them, do it. They have the money to actually accomplish something and we can continue to develop economically too.
Well, that does it. Definately not getting a date now. | |
|
| Who's following the Election?
Posted: 10/11/2008 5:09:04 PM | To be honest the level of debate and discussion -- not to mention the media coverage of this election has been boneheaded and stupid on all sides. Only Elizabeth May even tried to raise the debate beyond the sound bite and the headline grab level. And that lasted about 2 minutes. It is very sad to watch this sort of thing pass for democracy.
What I would have loved to have had asked of the Liberals is this: are they planning to tax carbon fuels exported from Canada. If they plan to tax fuels at a level high enough to make us stop using as much it -- 25% -- 30% less which is really individually more like 50% less current levels --- given population growth since the target year. Will they tax the coal going to China and oil and natural gas sold to the USA..? Canada is after all the number one foreign oil suppler to America. If we don't tax our carbon fuel going off-shore but do tax it at home it's nuts -- since a company will close down in Canada and go to a country to not pay carbon tax -- and operate using Canadian fuels carbon tax-free. Why would a manufacturing operation sit in Windsor and pay a life-style altering carbon tax if they can go to Detroit and operate at lower base cost.... Especially if they are energy intensive like the auto plants? Why wasn't this question not asked and answered yet -- it's 3 days before the vote... It is the core policy of the Liberal party and it's what they are campaigning on. | |
|
| Who's following the Election?
Posted: 10/11/2008 6:20:30 PM | The federal Tories have actually given the province of Alberta a bit of a double slap in the face regarding its control of its own resource future and the Triple E senate in their platform...yet Western Voters will likely continue to give them a passing grade... to slightly paraphrase the words of an op-ed in the Journal, the Premier's office was essentially boiling mad at the PM upon release of their platform and failure to work hand in glove with Alberta while Stelmach has, of course, been selling Alberta bitumen far and wide.
Again, no matter what your personal issues are, your taxes are going to go up considerably with the libs or the ndp. There isn't an economist in the world...check that...an impartial economist in the world, not a single one, who will tell you higher taxes are good for a capitalist economy. Environmentally speaking, the only people who have spent a single cent trying to fix any of this are oil companies and the Alberta government. Let them make money but make them spend it on new technology. The Alberta government has committed 2 billion to carbon capture. Suncor, Syncrude and Canadian Oilsands have all developed their own research departments and are trying to clean up. Make them, do it. They have the money to actually accomplish something and we can continue to develop economically too.
But who wants it? California, one of the largest markets to the south sure doesn't. And if Obama is elected, like as not America will close its doors to Alberta tar sands oil...especially since its own shale reserves are just as easy to get and oil corps like Chevron have destroyed Ecuador's environment to obtain cheap oil in this hemisphere. The Federal Tories have basically told Stelmach and the Alberta Tories that the federal Tory Green Plan will trump whatever Alberta and the Petroleum industry has in mind...talk about speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Do Alberta voters realize what kind of double dealer they have in Ottawa not supporting their primary industry? On top of that, his ideas of senate reform bear little resemblance to the Alberta Premier's.
And one more thing about Afghanistan. There's so much about Canada being a big pawn in the great conspiracy of oil the Americans have fabricated.
Well there is "fabricated" and then there is people asking questions and connecting the dots. On the surface, Canada was committed to maintaining its NATO obligations and has done so in an excellent fashion. The soldiers I have spoken to all supported the mission as described by the "now replaced" General Hillier. If the mission is keeping the peace and protecting innocent civilians from terrorists - if indeed that is the mission - then it is a laudable one. However as Elizabeth May pointed out in the English Language debate, this mission needs to be rethought, re-evaluated and turned into a UN mission supported by primarily Islamic soldiers from Islamic nations.
And everybody thinks we're suckers for putting our soldiers there. Here's what I don't get, and maybe I'm naive, but aren't the Taliban a bunch of motherf'ers? When the Americans left in 2003, the Taliban executed 142 teachers just for teaching girls. These are the guys who think it's okay to beat women with sticks if they don't wear bags over their heads and stay inside all day. Shouldn't we at least give it a go? And Harper has said that we're out of there in 2011. So there is an end, there is a goal, we are rebuilding and training for eventual Afghan autonomy. And at the very least we can leave in 2011 with our international commitments met and respected rather than bailing early with nothing but a totally messed up country left behind. And I think there is another bottom line to look at too...ask a soldier who has lost a friend there if he or she wants to stay and get a little pay back. That vote is unanimous. But again, maybe I'm just a redneck hick. Please inform me if I'm missing something.
This is not a simple issue, nor a simple conflict...I don't think reducing it to one is appropriate...nor IMHO is reducing it to the level of jingoism or using terms like "payback"...none of the troopers I speak to - and I do regularly - talk like that (Thank God or I would have to wonder if they needed psych evaluations).
Obviously the Taliban, by our standards, are superstitious savages. I would no more want them ruling the country than I would want to live in a country ruled by fundamentalist Christians like the Dominionist Church American VP candidate Sarah Palin belongs to...that being said, while the Taliban ruled, there was no heroin production in Afghanistan. Now the country is producing 90% of the worlds supply right under our noses. Prior to 9/11 it was producing 75% under the watch of the mujahadeen warriors that were trained and funded by the CIA.
Perhaps you are not aware of Operation Ajax in Iran or the fact that Afghani history has been one of the places where Cold War antics were played out during the 70's and the coup d'etat was likely one with spooks doing operations on both sides with Washington and Moscow interfering on both sides with the destiny of this country. This is the fallout. Now in our age, corporate agendas hold sway and, yes, the Caspian Pipeline is on the table whether we want to admit it or not we are involved...so frankly its not a black and white "terrorists - 9/11 - Bin Laden - Good vs. Evil" issue. It's ugly, messy and complex.
That being said, we should not leave until there is some kind of alternative in place, that being either a UN mission or capable Afghan forces to defend the people. That much is a given.
UN fires up its propaganda machine in the War on Drugs
Report paints a glowing, but misleading, picture
Dan Gardner, Ottawa Citizen
Published: Thursday, October 09
Afghanistan is going badly. "We're not going to win this war," said a top British general last week.
Well, pass the smelling salts.
The War on Drugs created Afghanistan's massive illicit drug trade. This trade funds the insurgency, corrupts the government and destabilizes society. But neither the U.S. nor the UN will acknowledge that the War on Drugs is anything less than a roaring success, so they refuse to discuss alternatives to the policy that fuels the whole bloody mess.
And victory eludes us? Well.
Look, the debate about Afghanistan has always bordered on farce. Every serious observer -- including the president of Afghanistan himself -- has said that Afghanistan's illicit drug trade, not the Taliban, is the single greatest threat the country faces. And yet the drug trade has always been treated as a peripheral issue.
Discussion has been scant. It has also been ignorant and vapid. Even the Manley report said nothing intelligent about it. "Coherent counter-narcotic strategies need to be adopted by all relevant authorities," the report sagely recommended, leaving the identity of these marvelous strategies to the reader's imagination.
This failure has many causes, but a key one is the simple fact that the primary source of information about the drug trade is the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
For the UNODC, the criminal prohibition of drugs is not merely a tool of public policy. It is a cause, a crusade, a faith. One does not question a faith. One promotes it. And that's what the UNODC does every year when it releases its World Drug Report.
For journalists and politicians the world over, the WDR is the definitive source of information about drugs and drug policy. Any time you read a news story or political statement about drugs in Afghanistan or elsewhere, there's a good chance the WDR was used as a source.
To an extent, that's fine. The WDR has lots of solid data in it.
But the report is primarily an instrument of propaganda. Its purpose is to praise the status quo, bury evidence of failure, and frame the discussion so serious scrutiny of the War on Drugs never happens.
A few examples:
- In the latest edition of the WDR, Antonio Maria Costa, director of the UNODC, boasts of how Southeast Asia "is now almost opium-free." This is a model for Afghanistan, he writes.
What Costa doesn't mention is that the large declines in opium poppy production in Southeast Asia occurred at the same time as even bigger increases were observed in Afghanistan. This was not a coincidence.
Squeeze a balloon in one place and it bulges elsewhere. When cocaine production was driven down in Bolivia and Peru, it soared in Colombia. When methamphetamine production was suppressed in the U.S., it shot up in Mexico. It's perfectly predictable.
Opium has grown in Afghanistan since time immemorial, but Afghanistan was never a major source of black market drugs. That started to change in the 1970s, when the balloon was squeezed in Turkey. In the 1980s and 1990s, the squeeze shifted to Southeast Asia and Pakistan. And today, Afghanistan supplies 93 per cent of the world's illicit opium. And for that, we can thank the very actions which the UNODC says are a model for Afghanistan.
- Thanks to criminal prohibition, the report argues, "the drug problem was dramatically reduced over the past century." Proof lies in the fact that world production of opium fell from 41.4 metric tonnes to 12.6 metric tonnes between 1906 -- when the drug was legal almost everywhere -- and 2007.
There are several problems here. First, the figure for 1906 is almost certainly inflated, as many observers said at the time. Second, it ignores the fact that opium's role in medicine, which was huge at the beginning of the early 20th century, steadily diminished as it was replaced by other painkillers. To the extent opium production fell, this change is as likely an explanation as prohibition.
- Costa crows that "coca production continues to fall, driven by significant declines in Colombia."
That may sound impressive but notice that Costa didn't say "cocaine" production is declining, only "coca" production (the coca bush is the source of cocaine). He leaves it to the reader to assume that less coca equals less cocaine.
The truth is buried in the guts of the report: Even as fewer acres are being planted with coca, productivity gains have driven cocaine output to record levels.
- In 1998, the WDR notes, a UN special assembly "urged countries to do more to control drugs." And they did. As a result, Costa writes, "the world drug situation has stabilized and been brought under control."
It's quite a story. Unfortunately, it's not even close to true. In 1998, the UN special assembly set a goal of "eliminating or significantly reducing the illicit cultivation of coca bush, the cannabis plant and the opium poppy by the year 2008."
Over the following 10 years, cocaine output grew 20 per cent and opium production doubled. That's according to the UNODC's own figures.
There lots more examples but I think the point is clear.
Don't be fooled by the UN imprimatur. The World Drug Report is crude propaganda.
Journalists and politicians who take it at face value contribute to the manipulation of public opinion and the stifling of meaningful debate. And that is unacceptable at a time when Canadian soldiers are fighting and dying in the War on Drugs.
© The Edmonton Journal 2008
| |
|
| Who's following the Election?
Posted: 10/11/2008 6:30:23 PM | "And one more thing about Afghanistan. There's so much about Canada being a big pawn in the great conspiracy of oil the Americans have fabricated. And everybody thinks we're suckers for putting our soldiers there. Here's what I don't get, and maybe I'm naive, but aren't the Taliban a bunch of motherf'ers? When the Americans left in 2003, the Taliban executed 142 teachers just for teaching girls. These are the guys who think it's okay to beat women with sticks if they don't wear bags over their heads and stay inside all day. Shouldn't we at least give it a go? And Harper has said that we're out of there in 2011. So there is an end, there is a goal, we are rebuilding and training for eventual Afghan autonomy. And at the very least we can leave in 2011 with our international commitments met and respected rather than bailing early with nothing but a totally messed up country left behind. And I think there is another bottom line to look at too...ask a soldier who has lost a friend there if he or she wants to stay and get a little pay back. That vote is unanimous. But again, maybe I'm just a redneck hick. Please inform me if I'm missing something. "
Do you honestly believe...that 'we' can change a system in a country such as Afghanistan...that has been instilled for 1000's of years? On a much smaller scale...and maybe one more closer to home to compare it to...Do you think the Liberal party (or any other, for that matter) will ever win in Alberta alone? No. Not likely. Same thing over there. Wether outsiders agree or not...'Eventual Afghan autonomy'...will never happen. Instead, we make ourselves targets....hated by others... when we follow an American "Save the world" attitude. (The US havent won a war or conflict since 1950 with this same attitude). So no...we shouldn't at least give it a go...we should get the hell outta there sooner than later.
Im not even going to discuss taxes here... Its better to get something for your tax dollar...than the nothing you get in Alberta. No matter where you live...you are going to pay taxes. You might as well get something. | |
|
| Who's following the Election?
Posted: 10/12/2008 2:59:55 AM | | i on occasion try to follow this election stuff, dam it makes great ways to fall asleep! | |
|
| Who's following the Election?
Posted: 10/12/2008 9:10:04 PM | I get what you're saying about Afghanistan and I totally know the history of conflict in the country, but it still seems like something we need to at least try to fix. And really, who cares if Europeans don't like us anymore? Snooty gits. But this is really funny........
"Im not even going to discuss taxes here... Its better to get something for your tax dollar...than the nothing you get in Alberta. No matter where you live...you are going to pay taxes. You might as well get something. "
Yeah....maybe I could get some more awesome separatist advertising in Quebec, or a few more excellent trips for the Governor General and all of her best friends. Maybe a registry system for bows and arrows, money for drunken senators and their girlfriends. Some good as new submarines that burn to the ground in the middle of an ocean! Lots of money for the Tamil Tigers. And the PLO too. That'd be great. Maybe we could start funding Bombardier again. Free Ski-Doo's in every driveway! | |
|
| Who's following the Election?
Posted: 10/12/2008 9:40:26 PM | Aren't "political issues" on the what women don't like talking about list?
Yes, we don't talk about politics while we are birthing babies and washing up after cooking all day 
Has anyone noticed the dearth of campaigning from the leaders of all parties in Alberta? There's been very little activity in western Canada since the very early days of the campaign as there are so many contentious ridings in the east. It's as though the parties other than the Tories have given up in Alberta which is very sad.
No marriage for gays and lesbians... should we start taking away rights from other sectors of society? Perhaps taking away the right of free will of what to eat for those who are overweight? Or the right for parents to decide what faith for their children to be raised in? These are choices people make; being homosexual usually isn't. But since some people find homosexual orientation offensive we should obviously bar all gays and lesbians from entering into a legal marriage since that portends the end of civilized society. We should prevent them from enjoying the same rights and protections as the rest of society so we don't upset a small part of our society who doesn't agree with their orientation. Yup, that seems eminently fair. /sarcasm
No one has mandated that churches marry homosexual couples. They are entitled to marry legally. How is it anyone's business whether they choose to enter into this legal state?
Afghanistan is a terribly complicated situation and I think that Canada's forces have more than met our NATO obligations in terms of lives lost. Is there anyone that has an answer to how to suppress the Taliban? Regardless of which party forms the next government I wish them all the wisdom in the world to deal with the situation.
I'm going back to my birthing and cooking and cleaning now. | |
|
| Who's following the Election?
Posted: 10/13/2008 7:13:00 PM | Know what I'd LOVE to see.... a simple vote on two issues gay marriage and abortion, every canadian is given two choices yay or nay, majority wins, write it into law . Only then would it be an exact representation of what the PEOPLE want and not as political/religious platforms so REAL problems can be focused on. I am actually for both things because gay weddings don't affect me in any way and I am pro choice.... but I would be satisfied with either result so fundy christians can FINALLY be silenced so they can move on to other aspects of human life that they feel the need to control.
Yes, separation of church and state... if only it were true.
Oh, and have the vote on a Sunday between the hours of 9am to noon. LOL
end rant | |
|
| Who's following the Election?
Posted: 10/13/2008 8:25:12 PM | "Do you honestly believe...that 'we' can change a system in a country such as Afghanistan...that has been instilled for 1000's of years? On a much smaller scale...and maybe one more closer to home to compare it to...Do you think the Liberal party (or any other, for that matter) will ever win in Alberta alone? No. Not likely. Same thing over there. Wether outsiders agree or not...'Eventual Afghan autonomy'...will never happen. Instead, we make ourselves targets....hated by others... when we follow an American "Save the world" attitude. (The US havent won a war or conflict since 1950 with this same attitude). So no...we shouldn't at least give it a go...we should get the hell outta there sooner than later. "
Ah Vin...you should've told the Liberals this even BEFORE THE LIBERAL GOVERNMENT SENT THEM THERE. What this really looks like is the Liberals making a huge mess to wait till someone else gets elected and b!tch and complain that the new gov't is not cleaning up the Lib's garbage. I'm sorry, but explain again why the Libs sent troops in the first place and are now the loudest to say GET THEM OUT OF THERE. Must be great to blame others for messes the Libs created...
"Im not even going to discuss taxes here... "
Apparently neither is Dion...oh waitaminnut...he wants to INCREASE taxes. 'Nuff said, I guess...
"Its better to get something for your tax dollar...than the nothing you get in Alberta. No matter where you live...you are going to pay taxes. You might as well get something. "
Holy crap, Vin...what in the hell are we getting for our "tax dollar" thru Dion? Carbon credits? Money transfers? Take a good look and see exactly what this is accomplishing...SWEET F*CK ALL...more like siphoning from Alberta (not to mention Canada)and other have-provionces to make others richer. Talk about a hidden agenda...
"All I have to say to Papa is that, after providing the proofs you asked for to back my position, if all you have to go on is a misunderstood question, then there's just no point in discussing it with you"
PROOF??? That's what you call PROOF??? A university kid and media that is Liberal sponsored??? Actually, I am not all surprised at your selection of this claptrap you call proof. Well, if it tickles your fancy...
Good God, if THAT is what you got, it is no wonder that you are scared, easyguy. You and the Liberal party are scared that people are smarter than you thought and you can't blow smoke up anyone's a$$ anymore with all this carbon BS and fear-mongering tactics that the Libs so often rely on to achieve their HIDDEN AGENDAS | |
|
| Who's following the Election?
Posted: 10/13/2008 8:52:34 PM | | more taxes.... for what? there is a road in NE calgary that runs through a residential area leading to a handibus storage lot that was paved this year.... you are reading this correctly, THIS YEAR!!!! lol Has Alberta been that broke for the last 5 decades that they couldn't finish a road? This is just a puny example of why the word budjet is omitted from dictionaries in the hands of our elected officials. | |
|
| Who's following the Election?
Posted: 10/13/2008 8:58:29 PM | Papa, you asked and I gave it to you. I offered you education and you return with attitude, cries of foul and trying to ridicule the information without a single returned base for your unwillingness to accept the truth. It's a response that doesn't surprise me. I did not really expect you to have anything to rebut with, nothing to back any reason for why anyone would vote for the Conservatives. But I offered you the chance to. I still do.
What I did get is your feeble attempts to ridicule documented proof, a bit of attitude and a lot of fluff. I think you called it "you can't blow smoke up anyone's a$$ ".
The cost of the ongoing war is a demonstration of the inept government. The fact that it was supposed to draw to a close in 2009 and under Harper, it is now extended to 2011 shows a bit of his "mini-Bush" nature as well. The fact that he's been in 3 elections in four years, growing weaker with each election and costing Canadians countless millions each time doesn't tell you anything either, does it? Or for continued demonstrations of his "selection of this claptrap" he calls honesty, how about this. He claims to be all for family and upholding them. Well, we've seen the other party leaders out with their families. Wife and kids are around and even in pictures and the news. Seen Harpers? Nope. Leaks in the government have suggested that his wife was waiting until after the election to formally file for divorce. Even she, apparently, has no faith in him, is fed up with his ways and wants to be done with him. As Canada is demonstrating as well.
But yeah, anything you have to offer toward the conversation, or are you just going to be loud, pose and posture and then really contribute nothing much? | |
|
| Who's following the Election?
Posted: 10/13/2008 9:00:37 PM | An awesome clip.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ou6otIlxWgE
Guess everyone knows what I'll be doing tomorrow lol | |
|
| Who's following the Election?
Posted: 10/13/2008 9:04:03 PM | Myname, I'd like to agree with your thoughts on a vote by the people with regard to abortion and gay marriage. You also state "Only then would it be an exact representation of what the PEOPLE want and not as political/religious platforms"
But given that the Catholic church has been written into the Canadian constitution, that people vote with what they are taught as children to be "good values" and often overseen by the church in those teachings, could the vote really reflect an impartial opinion of the country? The only people against it are the ones who have been taught through religious influence directly or indirectly that it is bad, on either issue.
Could a truly impartial vote ever happen in society? Not just here but anywhere? | |
|
| Who's following the Election?
Posted: 10/13/2008 9:25:52 PM | You know what I find bloody pathetic?
I came back from Kamloops, BC, today. Spent Thanksgiving with my Dad there. He lives right across the river, not too far from the mill. Now those who know Kamloops there is a large smokestack that billows out smoke every day. Hasn't changed...saw it today even, surprising for a holiday Monday. Now, I have been to Kamloops couple times this year, and couple the year before. It smells the same. Not too sure if city-folk can tell the difference when living in the city, but I noticed no change in the air that I could tell. All in all, NOTHING has changed. Smoke still puffs from stacks, cars still run, exhaust still blows, people still breathe...well, you get the picture
But when I asked some of the people (gas attendants, waitresses, people at the Blazer's hockey game...pretty good variety around Kamloops)what difference the carbon tax the provincial Liberals put forth made...they said none. Air isn't cleaner, pollution levels have not changed, still the same as before the carbon tax was issued. Has it made a difference? Ask the people of Kamloops...ask anyone living in a city or town or a farm/ranch in BC. Has the LIBERALS' CARBON TAX that the BC people are paying NOW made a difference? Now picture a CARBON TAX on a federal level, in EVERY province.
Do the math...or do I have to re-phrase the question 3 times so you can answer the way you want instead of honestly? | |
|
| Who's following the Election?
Posted: 10/13/2008 9:31:57 PM | easyguy, I do see your point. It's unfortunate but the numbers of realistic and true free thinkers are growing with each passing generation. The actual goal in this was to take this off the menu so politians/religion to find something far more important to argue about. I do realize the vote would be affected by people who allow their minds to be made up for them but like I said, I could live with the outcome either way it went.
I just get tired of hearing about it.
| |
|
| Who's following the Election?
Posted: 10/13/2008 9:35:43 PM | That's one question you'll have to pose to the provincial government of BC. This is a federal election.
What BC does with it, I don't know. Maybe use it to fund re-forestation so that the carbon dioxide in the air produced by the factories and cars and whatever can be converted back to air? It is what plants do, after all. So while that small town may not see it, the health of the region may? All they have to do is stop looking at their backyard and start looking at the health of the whole, if that is what the government is doing with some of the money. Perhaps as well, they are training and employing more inspectors who will then go around to enforce laws that industry continue to break with regard to pollution?
Does that mill produce lumber by chance? Do they also have support for the PC style pshaw-ing toward industry that the feds have demonstrated? Do they enjoy that Harper bullied a signing of the softwood lumber act, ceding all rights to any cross border tribunals on the whole softwood lumber fiasco may have been able to uphold? And do they enjoy that less than three days after the bullying into signing, the US lost the final appeal. Do they enjoy that if Harper had not bullied them into the last agreement they would have had a full refund of illegally collected tarrifs on the lumber, and as well the right for legal challenge for any lost industry, personal property and hardship to both business and to the people themselves who were put out of work because of the illegal action?
You state one arguement for one party. Yet you have a lot of arguements against another party and you choose to ignore multiple examples because of one arguement?
I see.
Anything else?
And incidentally, I as well am from a small one-horse town, mill supporting the community and know what the smell is for that town. What does story telling and reminescing have to do with the hard issues the country is facing? | |
|
| Who's following the Election?
Posted: 10/13/2008 9:56:29 PM | Out of curiosity, Papabear, you seem to think I am a fan of the Liberals. May I ask why?
I only support the ABC principle, Anyone But Conservative. When I go in to vote, it will be in the last hour of the day and it will be to throw my vote behind the party with the best chance of toppling the Conservatives.
I believe our choices are not that great, and I really do not like having no one that I can truly support or back, but I was raised with enough reason to get rid of the bad when I see it. And yes, I will debate and try to sway as many as I can to do the same.
I know that you hold your ideals, and that's your right. But in debating, others who may not be aware are reading as well, becoming educated and more informed on exactly what the Conservatives are. And the ones who use common reasoning skills will not support the Conservatives. Just like the country has been demonstrating. The Conservatives are getting smaller and smaller minority control because people are getting wise, catching on and waking up. The other parties don't offer much to support either, so the best I can hope for is to weaken them a bit more and hopefully next election a party, any party, will have direction and leadership that I can support. Until then, I can only try to knock down the bad. | |
|
| Who's following the Election?
Posted: 10/13/2008 10:17:13 PM | the Liberal party agreed to inital troop support right after 9/11 ...reluctantly to help out our 'friends' the Americans...who were crying for support . The Conservative party could have ended this madness when they were elected, but instead to extend the mission...even tho it was not popular with Canadians everywhere.
Taxes...are a necessary evil. All parties have 'creative' ways to adjust them for their own liking... Its nice to have maintained roads, free education for kids, recycling programs, plowed roads in winter, backyards bigger than a postage stamp...I don't think you can understand this Papa...for some reason, I have a hard time believing that you have ever been east of Saskatchewan... | |
|
| Who's following the Election?
Posted: 10/13/2008 10:26:08 PM | The problem with having an open vote on gay marriage type issues is that you can't just vote away minority rights. If the anti gay marriage side wins, then what? Gay people go suck eggs? On the other hand, religion aside, some people genuinely feel like their marriage means something more than a just a piece of paper and some tax write offs. (I know. Weird huh easyguy?) Changing the definition after the fact might really be troubling for some people who even clearly understand that God made Adam and Eve as well as Adam and Steve. I don't understand why at all, but it's an issue for some. Voting on it isn't going to make it go away.
A "truly impartial vote" would be a coin flip. Or pin the tail on the voting ballot. Unless by impartial you mean partial, as in no other influences other than those you agree with. | |
|
| Who's following the Election?
Posted: 10/13/2008 11:13:44 PM | "Out of curiosity, Papabear, you seem to think I am a fan of the Liberals. May I ask why?
I only support the ABC principle, Anyone But Conservative"
My apologies, easyguy...didn't mean to assume you were affiliated to any one party.
I suppose it is pretty easy to gang up on the big guns in gov't. But I just don't see how anyone ELSE but the Conservatives can do any better. Dion wants to tax everyone. Layton, let alone the NDP, has never seen Federal power before. Does he actually know how to run the country as a first-timer? The Green Party has their noses so far up the Liberals' a$$, it is not even funny.
At least the Conservatives made it simple...CONTROL SPENDING instead of RAISE TAXES. I don't know about you, but I think we are taxed enough.
Dion: tax EVERYBODY, and disguise it as being GREEN.
Layton: tax BIG BUSINESSES and hope there will be no mass exodus.
Elizabeth May: see Dion.
Anybody else: ???
"Lesser of these evils" I do believe the term was before. Sad, isn't it, when we have to chose the best of the worse to run this country
"Its nice to have maintained roads, free education for kids, recycling programs, plowed roads in winter, backyards bigger than a postage stamp...I don't think you can understand this Papa...for some reason, I have a hard time believing that you have ever been east of Saskatchewan..."
I have a hard time believing that you just might be insinuating that Sask and west doesn't matter Vin...please tell me that is NOT what you are implying | |
|
| Who's following the Election?
Posted: 10/14/2008 12:19:56 AM | Well listening to many others in business as well as seniors and families ;I am hearing more and more people saying that they will do anything to keep Dion out for numerous reasons.They are not referring to the Liberal party as many as I have heard say they would vote Liberal if it was a different leader and the team around the leader. Also so many are saying that to vote anything other than Liberal or Conservative is a spoiled vote as it is obvious it will be one or the other.
Is this the census of many or just the circles I am hearing from? | |
|
| Who's following the Election?
Posted: 10/14/2008 12:29:40 AM | What I've been hearing and supporting is anti-conservative. Even if the Libs were to win through some fancy hoop jumping, the conservatives would be so close that anything major could be voted out by a coalition of conservative and NDP.
Same goes if the conservatives win.
The big party to watch during and after will be the NDP. They have the potential to be the party that is catered to by the others, win or lose, just to keep this government from falling through yet again.
I hate supporting chaos in government but something needs to be done. Even, hypothetically, if a party were able to win a clear and clean win, the next few years are going to be rocky, so I personally would rather see nobody a clear winner and the need for interdependancy while new leaders are sought out and priorities re-assessed so that we have some real choices next election. It beats having a clear winner, only one party cleans house and we are maybe left with a choice next election, maybe not.
But the government as it currently sits along with the 3 main parties running are a joke and making a farce of the nation of Canada. | |
|
| Who's following the Election?
Posted: 10/14/2008 12:40:02 AM | | I have to agree with a lot of that ^^^ But all I have to say is get out there and vote people. Tired of listening to the people who didn't vote complain about who's running the gov't. | |
|
| Who's following the Election?
Posted: 10/14/2008 4:25:43 AM | "I have a hard time believing that you just might be insinuating that Sask and west doesn't matter Vin...please tell me that is NOT what you are implying"
No. I didn't imply anything of the sort. I do know Canada is much larger than 2 or 3 provinces...be them from the West ...or the East....
Anyways... today is voting day. Get out and there and vote for someone. I am going to be using the strategic 'ABC' voting myself...and hope that a Harper majority will not be formed. | |
|
| Who's following the Election?
Posted: 10/14/2008 7:51:57 AM | Just got back from voting...
EVERY STINKIN year I've had to register. WTF, can't they keep track of me?!
I guess thats politics for ya.
 | |
|
|
| Page 4 of 7
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
|
Home
login 
